[1] NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website. The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Garcia, M.J.		DATE TYPED:	02/07/02		HB
SHORT TITLE:		Develop Classified Staff T & E Index				SB	387
					ANALYST:		Baca

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY02

FY03

FY02

FY03

NFI

(Parenthesis) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Identical to HB 311

Relates to HB 66, HJM 9, SB 72, SJM 12 & SJM 73, SJM 73

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

State Department of Education (SDE)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 387 directs the State Department of Education to develop a classified staff training and experience (T & E) index. The proposed index is to be presented to the appropriate legislative committee prior to November 1, 2002.

Significant Issues

The T & E Index was included as a factor in the Public School Funding Formula to ensure that all school districts could recruit, retain and compete for experienced, well-trained teachers. Prior to adoption of the formula, “poorer” school districts experienced difficulty in recruiting, retaining and competing for teachers considered the most skilled. The T & E Index is used a multiplier in the current funding formula, and SDE reports this factor generates and more than $131 million for school districts during the 2001-2002 school year.

SB 387 addresses the issue of training and experience for those not currently included in calculating a school district’s T & E Index. The bill defines classified staff as personnel not assigned to an instructional program of the school district, presumably principals, instructional assistants, secretaries and clerks.

In calculating the Classified Staff T & E Index, a school district will use the actual number of full-time classified staff equivalents on the October payroll and the number of years of experience allowed for salary increment purposes on the salary schedule. The training and academic degree component to be used is the training and additional degrees allowed for salary increment purposes of the salary schedule of the school district.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

SB 387 has no appropriation and any potential costs associated with its provisions are indeterminate at this point because base school district data are not available. Moreover, the bill does not indicate how the index is to be used, e.g., as a multiplier. Also unclear in the bill is a listing of which classified staff is to be included, thereby adding to the difficulty of projecting potential costs.

SDE reports that, if it is assumed that the statewide Classified Staff Training and Experience Index will function as a separate multiplier against total membership program units, the estimated cost of the Classified Staff Training and Experience Index for 2002-2003 and beyond could be as substantial as the funding currently generated by the Instructional Staff Training and Experience Index, which totals $131,133.2.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

SDE will have to develop the Classified Staff T & E Index for review by the Legislature and develop and adopt regulations governing data collection and reporting procedures.

SB 387 would require the SDE develop a Classified Staff Training and Experience Index to be presented to and reviewed by the appropriate legislative interim committee prior to November 1, 2002. According to SDE, the short deadline for such an extensive project will require that SDE redirect some of its staffing resources to meet the requirements of HB 311, possibly hampering the department’s ability to meet its performance measure targets.

In addition, the SDE reports, school districts also would be required to collect and report the additional data and these new responsibilities may require additional financial resources to cover administrative costs.

CONFLICT/DUPLICATION/COMPANIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIP

SB 387 is identical to HB 311 and relates to SB 72, HB 66, SJM 12, SJM 73 and HJM 9.

SB 72 and HB 66 would provide funding for an independent study of the effect of the Instructional Training and Experience Index on the proposed professional educator licensing and salary system and on the state equalization guarantee. SJM 12 and HJM 9 request the Legislative Education Study Committee (LESC) continue its ad hoc committee on education reform during the 2002 interim and are companion bills to SB 72 and HB 66, respectively.

ALTERNATIVES

Both SB 72 and HB 66 would appropriate $120.0 to the LESC for an independent study of the impact of the Instructional Staff Training and Experience Index on the new professional educator licensing and salary system and on the state equalization guarantee distribution. An analysis of the impact of a training and experience index for classified staff could be part of those studies, according to the SDE.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The SDE reports, the bill does not indicate how Classified T & E Index would be applied. Would it serve as a multiplier in addition to the existing T & E Index or would it be merged with the existing index?

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1. Which school employees does the sponsor include in the bill ?

2. Should maintenance department employees also be considered in a Classified Staff T & E

Index?

3. How many school district employees would be included in the proposed index?

4. Would all school districts have to implement salary schedules for all school employees?

5. Are such salary schedules available in all or most school districts?

6. How do school districts currently generate state support for salaries for classified staff?

LB/ar